Legal Malpractice Newsroom

The Right to a Fair and Impartial Jury

The Joys were represented during argument by David W. Ransin of Springfield, and the doctors were represented by Kent O. Hyde of Springfield.

Wesley Joy's doctor, Dr. Stephen Morrison, recommended he have coronary artery bypass graft surgery, which involved harvesting a vein from one of his legs. Joy told Morrison the vein should not be from his right leg because of vascular circulatory problems in that leg. During surgery, in June 1995, Morrison harvested a vein from Joy's right leg. Morrison and Dr. John Buckner approved Joy's discharge from the hospital, but three days later Joy was readmitted with gangrene, and his leg had to be amputated. In April 2003, Joy and his wife sued the doctors for medical malpractice for the personal injuries Joy sustained. In June 2006, the parties conducted voir dire (asking potential jurors questions to select a jury), and the Joys challenged for cause one potential juror who said he believed that risk is part of surgery, that the patient has to "live with the result" if the doctor makes mistakes, and that he had strong feelings against suing doctors. The doctors objected to the Joys' challenge. The trial court overruled the challenge, and the man sat on the jury. In June 2006, the trial court entered judgment for the doctors. The Joys moved for a new trial, alleging the trial court erred in sustaining the doctor's objection to their challenge to the juror for cause. The trial court overruled their motion. The Joys appeal.

The Joys argue a party constitutionally is guaranteed the right to a fair and impartial jury, They assert section 494.470.1, RSMo, mandates that "no person who has formed or expressed an opinion concerning the matter or any material fact in controversy in any case that may influence the judgment of such person ... shall be sworn as a juror in the same cause." They contend the juror here should not have been placed on the jury after he said, in his opinion, there are too many lawsuits against doctors, the concept of being asked to award a substantial amount of money in this case bothered him, his opinions might affect his ability to listen to experts for both sides and give them fair credence, and he probably would be biased for the doctors unless Joys' counsel could persuade him otherwise. For policy considerations, the Joys contend, the integrity of the right to trial by a fair and impartial jury goes to the essence of the judicial system, there must be an unbiased jury of 12 and, to ensure the efficiency of trial, trial courts should err on the side of caution by sustaining a challenge for cause rather than create the potential for retrial.

The doctors respond that the juror properly was qualified to be on the jury because he indicated he would evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially and he vowed to follow the trial court's instructions. They agree with the Joys' policy arguments but assert the examples used were from a case where a juror lied during voir dire. In this case, the doctors contend, the juror did not lie or intentionally conceal information. The doctors argue it is not the law or policy of Missouri to strike all potential jurors who have any doubt in a case because such a policy would create great difficulty in selecting a jury.